To address that gap, the Senate introduced the PROTECT IP Act earlier this year and the House of Representatives introduced the Stop Online Piracy Act, otherwise known as “SOPA.” Critics of the legislation do not deny the threat of online piracy by foreign sites or offer viable solutions, and instead level several broad falsities to advance their agenda.

Myth: These proposed statutes “would go so far to protect copyright that they would strangle the Internet with regulation.”

Reality: The legislation targets sites that would already “be subject to seizure in the United States … if such site were a domestic Internet site,” or that are primarily designed or operated for the purpose of violating existing federal laws. Obviously, no Internet site possesses the right to pirate the intellectual property of others, so it hardly makes sense to claim that targeting such sites would devastate the Internet. More broadly, online piracy by domestic sites is already illegal, yet somehow the Internet has managed to survive in America.

Myth: SOPA or PROTECT IP somehow fail to provide due process and “give the federal government and Hollywood studios the right to censor and shut down websites.”

Reality: To obtain relief, prosecutors or private parties would have to petition courts for relief as with any other legal proceeding, with many due process protections. For instance, aggrieved parties would have to provide notice of the alleged violation to the targeted site, which would then have opportunity to rebut the allegations and present evidence. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 would apply as with other legal proceeding to obtain injunctive relief. That means relief could only be granted after demonstrating “specific facts” showing “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage,” a hearing “at the earliest possible time,” and “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

Reality: The proposed bill states explicitly that court relief would require only “technically feasible and reasonable measures” by sites in question. Further, there is no duty to continually monitor, and defendants would possess the affirmative defense that they don’t possess the “technical means to comply without incurring unreasonable economic burden.” Moreover, the legislation punishes any plaintiff that knowingly brings a false claim by holding them liable for not only damages caused, but also attorneys’ fees and costs. The bill also empowers courts to modify, suspend or vacate orders whenever “the interests of justice otherwise require.”

Reality: First of all, online piracy does not constitute “free speech.” Second, otherwise illegal activity does not achieve sacred status or legal immunity simply because it occurs on the Internet rather than on a street corner. Third, this legislation would remain subject to the same judicial review applicable to other statutes.

The first preconditions for a prosperous and just society are rule of law and protection of property rights. Anti-piracy legislation now before Congress finally addresses the threat of foreign piracy, and it’s unfortunate that so many opponents have resorted to inaccurate and flatly dishonest claims in an attempt to derail it.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.